Irreducible complexity and Evolution

Again it depends on the University. For example Otago University (where I went) the first year papers served the Health Science Professions (Medical,
dental, Pharmacy schools etc) .... thus the First year papers are condensed papers. At second year, what you describe sure.

This holds for most first year papers servicing the Health Sciences (Biochemistry, Physics, the Biological sciences etc).

originally posted by: Barcs
And sorry but I'm not buying your claim of having science degrees.

It's no difficulty getting such a degree. They bring in the pawns by the dozen as long as they pay tuition. They make you feel special by making you
feel like you have some sort of special knowledge. It was so easy it made me realize how pathetic the entire field of study was, and just how many
holes were in the swiss cheese they were selling. I ate up the story in highschool, but further study regarding complex neural structures in college
made me realize such meticulous neuronal circuitry could not be due to random mutation.

For you, a photoshopped pterodactyl with civil war soldiers and ancient art is empirical evidence of dinosaurs living with humans, so pardon my
skepticism of your claims.

What bothers me is your complete lack of interest in the abundance of dinosaur depictions throughout history. Any true scientist would have a field
day with such empirical evidence. But you chauvinists are stuck in the dark ages of material reductionism and refuse to consider anything that defies
your theoretical dogma.

Here's a Komodo dragon which still exists today. It's not far fetched to think that people would be astounded by the sight of this thing - and
probably their minds exaggerated the experience, hence the drawings. Could be a lot of reptiles that existed in ancient times. The drawings are not
evidence. They're suggestions of what people either saw or were thinking. They could be real but chances are they are simply exaggerations of some
wild reptile that existed at that time.

Writing was always a big thing when I went to school - didn't matter the subject - every one had to write - so science, history, social studies, etc.
not a bad thing though - you get over writer's block real quick!

Yeah, I always tell people that science is about getting your hands dirty - if you haven't done lab work, you haven't done science. It's not all in
the books. The lab is where you learn what it's all about - with good mentors of course.

Look at this thing - now that's a nightmare that might motivate an artist to draw it - however, I doubt the subject would cooperate for a sitting!
That's why the drawings are probably inclusive of a lot of imagination.

Certainly in the case of Chemistry (given that is what cooperton is saying one of their degrees is in). If you can't either perform a reaction (or
attempt too), analyse something or make a measurement, you are not doing chemistry. I am pretty sure that neuroscience is the same.

Now I don't know what sort of university they went too or type of degree they started (let alone got). But I am going to assume a Bachelors of
Science.

Degrees in Chemistry and Neuroscience do not qualify one to say evolution is bunk

I certainly learned much more when I came back to University in
2010, and did a quick Bioinformatics degree to be more well rounded. That was Biochemistry, Genetics (and Stats (which I'd minored in anyway) and
Computer Science)... that opened my eyes to the areas which are applicable in discussions on evolution. While my dissertation at the end of that was
into Cancer research, the methods can be applied to evolution. After all, you need to identify the mutation(s) which causes cancer, just like you can
understand evolution genetically through mutations.

I fully expect someone to chime in with "there are no positive mutations" .... demonstrating they can dogma good

That's very true about measurement - chemistry and physics in particular are all about measurement. That goes to the instrumentation, algorithms and
methods we use to achieve results. What these folks never understand is that nothing in science is set in stone. Anyone who can come up with
sufficient evidence to challenge a current model of anything is free to challenge the current thinking. Happens all the time in physics. But the
evidence must stand up to the criteria set for investigative research. Primarily, it must be reproducible. The guys around here want to jump over
the nitty gritty details and draw conclusions which are unacceptable to the scientific community. They expect everyone to jump up and down and sing
Hallelujah because they made a great discovery. It should be that easy...................................

Speaking as a Synthetic Chemist at heart. Measurement is important, but producing is important too. After all, one needs something to measure.

But yes you and I have constantly reminded them "science changes with the evidence". They either ignore that, or think that is a weakness in science
(clearly it was flawed ... well yes, and the new evidence is a strengthening the story

).

They also forget, that being a scientist, does not preclude having a spiritual life.

They also forget, that being a scientist, does not preclude having a spiritual life.

Listening to your conversation with Phantom. Did you know that all self known knowledge, acquired over many lifetimes accrues, and depending on you
passion for the subject, you will likely pursue similar careers in subsequent lives.

By the time scientists get to to the point where they depart the Human Kingdom, they will be perfectly trained to be biological geneticists. They will
go on to create life forms themselves and will display their deep rooted knowledge of genetic coding. They will expand their consciousness and
spiritual knowledge, promoting unity and deep Saintly love for humanity.

People will always continue to pursue that, which is their greatest joy.

Musicians, Artists all Creatives, Scientists who push the boundaries of their own knowledge, Philosophers, who can’t help but agree, “saying, well
yes, yes of course, well we agree then" slap their thighs before moving on to something useful like helping humanity or nature.

I have to go for an ultrasound on my kidneys next week, so I arrived at the conclusions that The Morrigan isn’t paricularly bright in biology.

Well chaps, keep up the good work serving humanity, you can have NO idea how good it gets.

Can you prove that, or is that a Unverifiable Personal or possibly Shared Gnosis? Because that is the only way I'm going to stomach what you wrote.

(a) What are non Biological Geneticists?
(b) There are a number of beliefs in the various reincatnationist faiths, over how reincarnation works. While the various IE tribes tend to think your
soul returned to the tribe, the idea that you accrued knowledge over time is not such a beleif.
(c) As I've said you have no idea about An Morrigan.
(d) You have no idea about me either.

Run along bee boy. You still suck at esoterics

I am awaiting a quote from your Guru, or more likely just a "read his works" (I have, they are not
particularly deep)

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.